PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has quashed orders of the State Government which had first extended the probation of the then principal of the Goa College of Pharmacy Subhash Marihal and later terminated his service back in 2008.
The court, while stopping short of reinstating him into service on grounds that he would have retired by now ordered the State government "to pay him his back wages for the period commencing on the date of his termination and ending on the date he would have ordinarily retired.
"All remuneration must be calculated and paid to Marihal on the basis that his service was continuing. Interest, if any, on the amount due will be computed according to the rules or at 6% per annum, whichever is less," the High Court ruled.
Subhash was selected for the post of Principal of Goa College of Pharmacy on November 11, 2002. The order of appointment specified that he would be on probation for a period of one year, but did not prescribe any procedure or prerequisites for confirmation. He took charge as principal on November 22, 2002, and completed the stipulated one-year probation on November 22, 2003. During this period, he received no feedback or communication from his employers regarding his performance, or the lack of it.
It was only on May 31, 2006, a full two-and-a-half years after he had completed his probation, that he received a memorandum containing extracts of certain entries recorded in his Annual Confidential Report. The entries stated that his overall performance was average and he had only barely managed his duties. The state government then belatedly extended his probation until May 31, 2007 vide order dated August 14, 2006.
He continued in office even after May 31, 2007. On January 2, 2008, the government terminated his services on the ground that his performance during his probation period was not satisfactory.
Marihal challenged both the orders -- extending his promotion and his subsequent termination.
Marihal argued that on completion of his stipulated one-year period of probation he must be deemed to be confirmed. Since he was deemed to be confirmed, the order terminating his services on the ground that his performance during his probation period was unsatisfactory is unsustainable.
Further, the order of termination is in violation of Article 311(2) because he was not informed of the charges against him, and was not allowed an opportunity to make a representation against them.
The HC ruled in his favour on both arguments while rejecting the government's
arguments.
